The Development, Uses and Future of Gerovital H3
Introduction |
From the Past to the Present |
The Nature of Gerovital H3
Research and Speculation on Possible Benefits |
Some Additional Clinical Considerations
An Intangible Field of Resistance |
The Future of Gerovital H3 |
Footnotes |
Bibliography
FROM THE PAST TO THE PRESENT
HOW WAS GEROVITAL H3 DEVELOPED?
The active ingredient of Gerovital is procaine. Procaine is a local anesthetic first synthesized in 1905 by Alfred Einhorn, a German scientist. For minor surgery, dentistry and procedures near the surface of the skin, procaine was preferred. It numbed the area, broke down quickly and soon left the system. It produced no after-effects and showed few allergic consequences.
As with many scientific discoveries, the regenerative potentials of procaine came to light by accident. Over the years, physicians using it reported unusual and unexpected effects in patients. Arthritis sometimes would improve, hair would regrow or recolor, and skin quality often would improve. These reports came for the most part from surgeons, who were not particularly interested in gerontology.1
Ana Aslan, MD is director of the National Institute of Gerontology and Geriatrics in Romania. She was the first gerontologist to investigate seriously the possibilities of procaine as a tool in the fight against aging.2, 3 Dr. Aslan recognized that procaine in a sense “attacks” the body’s cells by numbing them. The body counterattacks with the enzyme cholinesterase. Cholinesterase hydrolizes the procaine and in about an hour (66’ ± 14’) degrades it. Dr. Aslan speculated that the compound could be stabilized so that it would not numb the cells. The body then would not reject it and the regenerative effects would be extended.
This notion launched her on a research mission lasting two years. In 1951, she had perfected a procaine product she called Gerovital H3. It contained antioxidants and stabilizing agents. Once stabilized, the procaine molecule could not react with the same swiftness in the cells. The numbness did not occur and the cholinesterase was not called up. The resulting compound stayed in the body more than six hours and had no anesthetic qualities. Presumably, this magnified any regenerative effects by a factor of at least six. It also gave the ingredients sufficient time to reach the organs.
Claims coming out of the Institute’s clinics for the next few years were viewed as outlandish. Patients treated with GH3 supposedly showed improvements in circulatory function, skin elasticity, ulcers, parkinsonism, arthritis, hair, depression. According to the reports, practically all aging phenomena diminished in severity with Gerovital H3.4
Dr. Aslan’s continuing research caught the attention of gerontologists in West Germany, who invited her there in 1956. She presented her findings to a group of her peers in Karlsruhe at the Therapy Congress Meeting. The attendees treated her uncommon claims with skepticism and rejection.
Still convinced of her clinical results, she continued her research in Romania for another year. This time she filmed all her results. Some months later, she received tolerant coverage in a respectable West German medical journal. She was invited back to Karlsruhe in 1957, where the assembled scientists gave her a warm response.5
WHY WAS GH3 NOT IMMEDIATELY ACCEPTED IN AMERICA?
Despite the scientific research on Gerovital, American health professionals generally have viewed Dr. Aslan with skepticism. The allopathic orientation of American medicine favors creating conditions in the body which are incompatible with the disease. Dr. Aslan’s approach more aptly could be termed homeopathic. It aims to restore balance by mobilizing the body’s existing defenses. The allopathic approach places less emphasis on preventive treatment. It also raises suspicion about products claiming to have diverse benefits.
The first American response to the Romanian reports was not long in coming. An article negative to procaine therapy appeared in 1963 in the Journal of the American Medical Association. This piece discussed several investigations by both English and American scientists. These research projects asserted that “GH3” was harmless, but that it did little or no good.6
These conclusions differed vastly from those originating in Europe. A research team from the Chicago Medical School Institute for Medical Research sought to resolve the conflicts in 1965. It concluded that the American and English investigators did not employ the Romanian formulation. They instead used a form of unstabilized procaine. Further, the results obtained with Dr. Aslan’s product during the Chicago study were the same as she had claimed.7 However, only the negative articles continued to receive wide attention. More than 200 positive reports on GH3 existing at that time never reached the major medical journals.8
From this point on, GH3 fell into relative obscurity in America. Part of the problem was the non-availability of the genuine formulation; the Romanians do not allow export of their product for general sale. Only a few foreign clinics could acquire it. This meant high costs for GH3 users. The rich and famous went on yearly pilgrimages to Romania.
Various researchers sought and failed to earn FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approval for Gerovital. Then as now, the pharmaceutical market was geared for patent products. The money needed to satisfy standard protocols was not available for an unpatentable product such as Gerovital. The ghcontention that as a nutrient GH3 has never needed such approval will be detailed later. However, the mire of prevailing circumstances insured that Gerovital H3 generally would not be available outside Romania.
With changing awareness about nutrition and preventive health care, Gerovital gradually has become more recognized. Methods of determining representatives of the true Romanian formulation will be discussed in a later section. However, we need first to develop a picture of its possible actions and benefits.
